Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-7mfl8 Total loading time: 0.301 Render date: 2021-12-08T04:55:07.173Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

More holes in social roles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2009

Douglas T. Kenrick
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104. douglas.kenrick@asu.edu
Vladas Griskevicius
Affiliation:
Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. vladasg@umn.eduwww.carlsonschool.umn.edu/marketinginstitute/vgriskevicius

Abstract

Given the strength of Archer's case for a sexual selection account, he is too accommodating of the social roles alternative. We present data on historical changes in violent crime contradicting that perspective, and discuss recent evidence showing how an evolutionary perspective predicts sex similarities and differences responding in a flexible and functional manner to adaptively relevant triggers across different domains.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (1999) The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social rules. American Psychologist 54:408–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G. & Buss, D. M. (2006a) Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry 17:7595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B. & Kenrick, D. T. (2006a) Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:6376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N., Mortensen, C., Cialdini, R. B. & Kenrick, D. T. (2006b) Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:281–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Gangestad, S. W., Perea, E. F., Shapiro, J. R. & Kenrick, D. T. (2009) Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96:980994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F. & Kenrick, D. T. (2007) Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93:85102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, C. W. M. & Pillig, A. R. (1960) The Tiwi of North Australia. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Gabrielidis, C., Keefe, R. C. & Cornelius, J. (1996) Adolescents' age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development 67:1499–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenrick, D. T. & Keefe, R. C. (1992) Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in mating strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15:7591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Nieuweboer, S. & Buunk, A. P. (2010) Universal mechanisms and cultural diversity: Replacing the blank slate with a coloring book. In: Evolution, culture, and the human mind, ed. Schaller, M., Norenzayan, A., Heine, S., Yamagishi, T. & Kameda, T., pp. 257–72. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T. & Sheets, V. (1993) Homicidal fantasies. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, M. & Murray, D. R. (2008) Pathogens, personality and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95:212–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, W. & Eagly, A. H. (2007) Social structural origins of sex differences in human mating. In: The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies, ed. Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A., pp. 383–90. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

More holes in social roles
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

More holes in social roles
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

More holes in social roles
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *